2007 (2) TMI 414 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the initiation of the new shipper review under Rule 22.
2. Relationship between the new shipper and existing exporters/producers subject to anti-dumping duties.
3. Determination of "normal value" and "export price" for the new shipper.
4. Market economy status of the new shipper.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the initiation of the new shipper review under Rule 22:
The appellant argued that the new shipper did not satisfy the preconditions of Rule 22 and that the applications by the exporter and producer should have been rejected. They contended that the Designated Authority erred in commencing the investigation because the declarations by the new shipper were false and misleading. The Designated Authority, however, found the application sufficient to justify the initiation of a review under Rule 22. The review was initiated by notification dated 25-8-2004. The Designated Authority, after examining the material, concluded that the applicants were entitled to the determination of their dumping margin as new shippers. The tribunal upheld this finding, stating that the declarations were made as required by Rule 22 and that no prejudice was caused to the interested parties by the initiation of the new shipper review.

2. Relationship between the new shipper and existing exporters/producers subject to anti-dumping duties:
The appellant argued that SBM was directly related to NZYC, which had participated in previous investigations and was subject to anti-dumping duties. The Designated Authority found that the applicants were not related to any producer or exporter who had exported during the original period of investigation. The tribunal noted that the relationship issue is to be examined in the context of the notification that makes the product and their exporters/producers subject to anti-dumping duty. It was held that the expression "exporters or producers in the exporting country who are subject to anti-dumping duties on the product" in Rule 22(1) would mean only those who had exported in the earlier period of investigation. The tribunal agreed with the Designated Authority's finding that the new shipper review was initiated in accordance with Rule 22 and that there was no evidence of any exports during the original period of investigation by the related companies.

3. Determination of "normal value" and "export price" for the new shipper:
The Designated Authority examined the issues of "normal value" and "export price" in accordance with the provisions and found that the dumping margins of vitrified/porcelain tiles were negative, indicating no dumping by the new shipper applicants. The tribunal agreed with the reasoning and findings of the Designated Authority on these aspects.

4. Market economy status of the new shipper:
The appellant argued that the finding of the authority to take the company as operating in a market economy was erroneous. The Designated Authority, however, found that the management of the new shipper applicants was independent from State intervention and granted them market economy treatment. The tribunal upheld this finding, agreeing with the Designated Authority's reasoning and conclusions.

Final Order:
The tribunal concluded that the Designated Authority rightly recommended that no anti-dumping duty be imposed on imports of vitrified/porcelain tiles produced by SBM and exported through NZYC, as the export price was above its normal value during the period of investigation. The challenge against the impugned notification dated 13-2-2006, withdrawing anti-dumping duty, failed, and the appeal was dismissed.